Stars born in winds from supermassive black holes

March 27, 2017, ESO
Artist's impression of a galaxy forming stars within powerful outflows of material blasted out from supermassive black holes at its core. Results from ESO's Very Large Telescope are the first confirmed observations of stars forming in this kind of extreme environment. The discovery has many consequences for understanding galaxy properties and evolution. Credit: ESO/M. Kornmesser

Observations using ESO's Very Large Telescope have revealed stars forming within powerful outflows of material blasted out from supermassive black holes at the cores of galaxies. These are the first confirmed observations of stars forming in this kind of extreme environment. The discovery has many consequences for understanding galaxy properties and evolution. The results are published in the journal Nature.

A UK-led group of European astronomers used the MUSE and X-shooter instruments on the Very Large Telescope (VLT) at ESO's Paranal Observatory in Chile to study an ongoing collision between two , known collectively as IRAS F23128-5919, that lie around 600 million light-years from Earth. The group observed the colossal winds of material—or outflows—that originate near the at the heart of the pair's southern galaxy, and have found the first clear evidence that stars are being born within them.

Such galactic outflows are driven by the huge energy output from the active and turbulent centres of galaxies. Supermassive black holes lurk in the cores of most galaxies, and when they gobble up matter they also heat the surrounding gas and expel it from the host galaxy in powerful, dense winds.

"Astronomers have thought for a while that conditions within these outflows could be right for star formation, but no one has seen it actually happening as it's a very difficult observation," comments team leader Roberto Maiolino from the University of Cambridge. "Our results are exciting because they show unambiguously that stars are being created inside these outflows."

The group set out to study stars in the outflow directly, as well as the gas that surrounds them. By using two of the world-leading VLT spectroscopic instruments, MUSE and X-shooter, they could carry out a very detailed study of the properties of the emitted light to determine its source.

Radiation from young stars is known to cause nearby gas clouds to glow in a particular way. The extreme sensitivity of X-shooter allowed the team to rule out other possible causes of this illumination, including gas shocks or the active nucleus of the galaxy.

The group then made an unmistakable direct detection of an infant stellar population in the outflow. These stars are thought to be less than a few tens of millions of years old, and preliminary analysis suggests that they are hotter and brighter than stars formed in less extreme environments such as the galactic disc.

As further evidence, the astronomers also determined the motion and velocity of these stars. The light from most of the region's stars indicates that they are travelling at very large velocities away from the galaxy centre—as would make sense for objects caught in a stream of fast-moving material.

Co-author Helen Russell (Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge, UK) expands: "The stars that form in the wind close to the galaxy centre might slow down and even start heading back inwards, but the that form further out in the flow experience less deceleration and can even fly off out of the galaxy altogether."

The discovery provides new and exciting information that could better our understanding of some astrophysics, including how certain galaxies obtain their shapes; how intergalactic space becomes enriched with heavy elements; and even from where unexplained radiation may arise.

Maiolino is excited for the future: "If is really occurring in most galactic outflows, as some theories predict, then this would provide a completely new scenario for our understanding of galaxy evolution."

This research was presented in a paper entitled "Star formation in a galactic outflow" by Maiolino et al., to appear in the journal Nature on 27 March 2017.

Explore further: Stars regularly ripped apart by black holes in colliding galaxies

More information: Star formation inside a galactic outflow, Nature, nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/nature21677

Related Stories

Outflowing gas in ultraluminous galaxies

January 9, 2017

Galaxies evolve over billions of years in part through the activity of star formation and their supermassive nuclear black holes, and also by mergers with other galaxies. Some features of galaxies, in particular the strong ...

Star birth with a chance of winds?

January 27, 2017

The lesser-known constellation of Canes Venatici (The Hunting Dogs), is home to a variety of deep-sky objects—including this beautiful galaxy, known as NGC 4861. Astronomers are still debating on how to classify it. While ...

Recommended for you

Hunting molecules to find new planets

June 19, 2018

It's impossible to obtain direct images of exoplanets as they are masked by the high luminous intensity of their stars. However, astronomers led by UNIGE propose detecting molecules present in the exoplanet's atmosphere in ...

Exploring planetary plasma environments from your laptop

June 15, 2018

A new database of plasma simulations, combined with observational data and powerful visualisation tools, is providing planetary scientists with an unprecedented way to explore some of the Solar System's most interesting plasma ...

47 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Tuxford
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 27, 2017
The group observed the colossal winds of material—or outflows—that originate near the supermassive black hole at the heart of the pair's southern galaxy, and have found the first clear evidence that stars are being born within them.

These stars are thought to be less than a few tens of millions of years old, and preliminary analysis suggests that they are hotter and brighter than stars formed in less extreme environments such as the galactic disc.

are travelling at very large velocities away from the galaxy centre

Just more unexpected observations completely in-line with LaViolette's Continuos Creation model, that is so unpopular with the merger maniacs. No maniac dares mention it. Career-killer. Embarrassing. Long-live the Huge Bang Fantasy, so promoted by the counter-intelligence spooks to the naive science community.
RNP
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 27, 2017
@Tuxford
Just more unexpected observations...


False. Did you not read the article? It says:

"Astronomers have thought for a while that conditions within these outflows could be right for star formation, but no one has seen it actually happening as it's a very difficult observation,"

You have allowed your obsession to blind you to truth again.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2017
To be fair, stars forming along filaments are a very recent addition to the astrophysical playbook.
richk
5 / 5 (1) Mar 27, 2017
it/is/hard/to/understand/how/the/matter/coalesces/in/a/wind/strong/
enough/to/eject/that/which/is/said/to/be/coalesced/in/it?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2017
it/is/hard/to/understand/how/the/matter/coalesces/in/a/wind/strong/
enough/to/eject/that/which/is/said/to/be/coalesced/in/it?

Only morons would suggest this based upon the standard model of stellar formation. After perusing one of the papers which relates to this statement;
"...that may have the physical conditions (high gas densities4, 5, 6) required to form stars. Indeed, several recent models predict that such massive outflows may ignite star formation within the outflow itself.."
Basically they're blaming it on "cold blobs of gas" in these outflows, "dark blobs" for short. 10-4 Tonto!
They pick and choose which plasma physics they want to apply to arrive at their postdictions.
How do we sometimes create light? Place an electric current through a gas of plasma. Wouldn't it seem logical nature plays the same games? Electric currents through a space plasma can do the same.
https://arxiv.org...97v3.pdf
Only problem there is it voids the gravity centric models.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (6) Mar 28, 2017
stars forming along filaments are a very recent addition to the astrophysical playbook.


"This theory consists of two parts : a) the formation of stars in the galaxy at large and b) the
formation of star chains in filamentary gaseous nebulae." Otto Struve, 1953
Steelwolf
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 28, 2017
The thing about these Some Theories predicting this is that there were many more Naysayers trying to bash this particular theory as it was too energetic a regime for most scientists to even consider that there would be stellar formation within the AGN jets. Thus Tuxford is quite right, just as right as so many folks who put up theories that are outliers to the mainstream big money theories and have them shot down by the same type of closed minded trolls as we have here.

When MY Personal Theories come to be proven by mainstream science I will then be able to say that we had been considering this theory for some time...note, it does not say How Much Time, just 'some'.

All you semantic experts should have fun with this.
RNP
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 28, 2017
@Steelwolf
The thing about these Some Theories predicting this is that there were many more Naysayers trying to bash this particular theory as it was too energetic a regime for most scientists to even consider that there would be stellar formation within the AGN jets.


You are doing it again... making wild, unsupported claims that show a complete lack of understanding of the physics involved. Give references for the claim above if you want *anybody* to believe it is a that is anything other than pure fabrication and that you are not simply a liar.

When MY Personal Theories come to be proven by mainstream science....


LOL. LOL. LOL. Thanks, I needed that!
Steelwolf
1.3 / 5 (4) Mar 28, 2017
RNP, you are in the class of the Popes and non-intelligent naysayers that have ALWAYS dogged new theories or inventions. People like you would have us back in the stone age because of the fear to do anything different or New. Please keep your uneducated opinion of such to yourself as you are adding NOTHING to the discussion other than negatives.

You have already proven yourself to be a twister of wording, a liar and purveyor of mis-information. Your level of integrity is well below that of most of the authors in such rags as The Inquirer and other tabloids. In other words, you have no basis for anyone to believe you and your idiotic posts.

Ity is funny though, as more and more papers are printed that have tangents to my own theories and that provide the proofs to them. You are not a scientist RNP, so I would never expect you to understand such things. All you can do is copy and paste with a little bit of rearranging the wording like most science authors.
Steelwolf
1 / 5 (4) Mar 28, 2017
I have to admit, though, that it is highly entertaining to see someone who avoids actual PROOFS like they were a plague and decides to quit posting when they have been proven (PROVEN) Wrong, Wrong Wrong like you have on so Many different posts. One would think that you would get tired of being PROVEN Wrong again and again and again with your trolling.

Myself, more and more the data comes back to validate theories I had back in the 80's before we were able to probe some of these higher energetic regimes and be able to see the far sources of infrared, X-ray and Gamma ray data that we have now.

The fact that you do not UNDERSTAND my theories, and thus automatically naysay them shows that you should not be in the field you are as you are a poster child for Mis-Information and anti-conservative-science bashing.

Anti-science trolls have ben around since forever, and it is because we ignore folks like you that we have been able to advance as a species.
RNP
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 28, 2017
@Steelwolf
RNP, you are in the class of the Popes and non-intelligent naysayers that have ALWAYS dogged new theories or inventions...

RNP, you are in the class of the Popes and non-intelligent naysayers that have ALWAYS dogged new theories or inventions...

You have already proven yourself to be a twister of wording, a liar and purveyor of mis-information. Your level of integrity is well below that of most of the authors in such rags as The Inquirer and other tabloids.


This is all lies and obfuscation. I have been a professional scientist my whole professional life, and as usual, you have NO evidence to the contrary, yet STILL you make the claim.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, you have YET AGAIN failed to provide evidence for the pseudo-scientific claims that you made in your previous post.
RNP
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 28, 2017
@Steelwolf
it is highly entertaining to see someone who avoids actual PROOFS like they were a plague and decides to quit posting when they have been proven (PROVEN) Wrong, Wrong Wrong like you have on so Many different posts.


1) The idea that you have EVER provided "PROOF" for any of your claims is laughable.

2) I stop posting when I know that everybody else reading the nonsense posted by pseudo-scientists (such as yourself) must recognize it as such, or when it is time for bed.

The idea that you have EVER proven me, or anybody else wrong, is again laughable.

Keep the comedy coming!
Steelwolf
1 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2017
RNP, for proof of you being PROVEN WRONG, look back to the story on Massive Magnetic Fields at: https://phys.org/...rse.html

And yes, you badly misinterpreted the paper as it says, DIRECTLY, that either dark matter does not exist and they need a new Physics to describe what we see, OR the Dark Matter coincides directly with the Baryonic matter mass such that there needs to be new theories as to how that can happen. Others also point to how you mangled that statement.

So, despite your continuous ad homenim attacks and non-valid trumpeting of the term 'Pseudo Science', I have delivered the proofs you asked for then, and you went and mangled it intentionally, either that or you Really do not understand the subject nearly as well as you think you do.

I would have thought, that you, being an author of sorts, would have a MUCH better reading comprehension level than you appear to have. My mistake.
RNP
4.6 / 5 (8) Mar 28, 2017
@Steelwolf
Regarding https://phys.org/...rse.html .

Again, laughable. I was NOT proven wrong. THAT is obvious from your post above:

... you badly misinterpreted the paper as it says, DIRECTLY, that either dark matter does not exist and they need a new Physics to describe what we see, OR the Dark Matter coincides directly with the Baryonic matter mass such that there needs to be new theories as to how that can happen.


Read your own quote! It very clearly says that the DM effect is real and can not be explained simply by the baryons. The DM effect therefore needs to be explained by something else, be it a new form of matter, or a change to our understanding of gravity.

Clearly, I did NOT misinterpret the paper. But you did!
Steelwolf
1 / 5 (2) Mar 28, 2017
You asked to be kicked again RNP, so here you go: In that paper
"8.3. Implications for Alternative Theories
The tightness of the radial acceleration relation and the lack of residual correlations may suggest the need of a revision of the standard DM paradigm. We envisage two general scenarios: (I) we need new fundamental laws of physics rather than DM, or (II) we need new physics in the dark sector leading to a baryon-DM coupling."
(< > mine clarifying statement)
That statement, DIRECTLY from that paper you referenced at :
https://arxiv.org...8981.pdf

And it DIRECTLY STATES (if you can read properly) that due to better data, beyond the observed baryonic mass effects there are no residual effects that can show any action from dark matter. and that there may need to be a different paradigm that excludes DM or one that couples directly to the baryonic mass.
Go and have a REAL scientist interpret for you, since you have it backwards in your head.
Steelwolf
1 / 5 (2) Mar 28, 2017
It chopped part of my statement:
"8.3. Implications for Alternative Theories
The tightness of the radial acceleration relation (due to Baryonic mass) and the lack of residual correlations may suggest the need of a revision of the standard DM paradigm. We envisage two general scenarios: (I) we need new fundamental laws of physics rather than DM, or (II) we need new physics in the dark sector leading to a baryon-DM coupling."
((__) mine clarifying statement)
That statement, DIRECTLY from that paper you referenced at :
https://arxiv.org...8981.pdf

With the fresh data they show that baryonic mass acounts for ALL observed motion with no need for a DM component and state that either there is no need for a DM component, or if there is one then it is strongly coupled to the barynic mass.

What part of "(I) we need new fundamental laws of physics rather than DM, or (II) we need new physics in the dark sector leading to a baryon-DM coupling." do you not understand?

Steelwolf
1 / 5 (2) Mar 28, 2017
@RNP, and Your Reply? Or are you going to ignore and move on since you have been thusly PROVEN WRONG yet Again?

Do you have a logical arguent based in Facts and not on your own suppositions? Or are you going to blatantly ignore such proofs when handed to you because you cannot accept that you may have been wrong and are too embarrassed to admit it? That is Not the way the Scientific Method works.

You know, when new data wrecks your old theory you need to find something which fits the data, which is what they did in that paper. And, due to better and more accurate equipment and thus new and much better data, they found No need for an imaginary Dark Matter as the Baryonic Mass created the effects seen and any Possible signs for DM were below the detection/error threshhold, as they stated in the paper.

Mis-represent as you may, the TRUTH cannot be explained away so easily.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (7) Mar 28, 2017
This is all lies and obfuscation. I have been a professional scientist my whole professional life, and as usual, you have NO evidence to the contrary, yet STILL you make the claim.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, you have YET AGAIN failed to provide evidence for the pseudo-scientific claims that you made in your previous post.
@RNP
epic score on the crackpot index for steelw: http://math.ucr.e...pot.html

LOL
Steelwolf
1 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2017
Obviously I Win that round. RNP does not return and others only pick up the ad homenim attacks and lies put forth by others. If this was an actual debate in a real scientific forum you folks, RNP, Stumped and Shnitzel would be laughed out of the building.
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (6) Mar 28, 2017
Obviously I Win that round. RNP does not return and others only pick up the ad homenim attacks
@steel-troll
1- RNP may not even be on the net, so i suggest you wait before crowing about your above postings

2- the simple fact of the matter is: you started the ad hominem attacks, so that, by your own definition, means you failed and "lost that round"

3- taking into consideration comments you made like "The fact that you do not UNDERSTAND my theories" - then the notation of the crackpot index isn't ad hominem
it's a teaching tool to insure that even non-technical laymen posters can "spot the looney"

4- if this were an actual science debate you would be required to provide evidence, not your personal opinion or your personal hypothesis (not Theories)
and you would be required to give references to support your claims in everything, especially your personal hypothesis BS

IOW- you're attempting to gain credibility for your beliefs by posting here & failing
Steelwolf
1 / 5 (2) Mar 28, 2017
Actually Stumped, you lose yet again, you have, in your entirety of posts here in the Phys.Org sites, rarely, if ever, actually include ANY verifiable science, ALWAYS resort to ad homeneim attacks, and repeatedly call people Nazi Sympathizer...

Now, if you really want to be taken seriously you Might, Just might, actually refer to papers with science in them. I posted facts, somebody says I lied, I PROVED, Beyond ANY Doubt that it was RNP who is and was lying, and therefore it is up to him to answer. The fact that he has not, even though he was so very quick to come and try to slam me with his falsifications, shows that he is UNABLE to stand up to being corrected.

Were this a real science forum you would have to provide YOUR proffs as to why these other scientists papers are wrong. I put it down just as the authors did, and state the SAME CONCLUSIONS as they do. RNP states exactly backwards what the Authors say.
I say again, I stand vindicated.
Steelwolf
1 / 5 (2) Mar 28, 2017
So Stumpy, can you parse this statement, which is complete and undoctored, straight from the paper RNC and I have referenced?

"We envisage two general scenarios: (I) we need new fundamental laws of physics rather than DM, or (II) we need new physics in the dark sector leading to a baryon-DM coupling."

That is the statement. What does that translate to?

Frankly I do not care about my personal theories becoming mainstream. I am not in a position where I would make any income from it anyways. I just really hate seeing people who have alternate theories being AUTOMATICALLY derided just because their theory is Different than mainstream. Funy thing, though. Most of our science today is based on the thinking of people who were roundly laughed at over their pet theories when they were first thought up. Study some of the Great Thinkers, that is a common happening for them, being ridiculed and laughed at for their 'wild' ideas. Funny that we study them now.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2017
Hi RNP. :)

Will you now admit I have been correct all along on the science/logics re all sorts of stars, star-clusters, low-mass/low-luminosity galaxies/features forming from the variously high-energy 'deconstructed material' of the galactic winds and polar jets which can reach to various distances from a galaxy's 'halo' hemispheres to intergalactic space regions....hence explaining why we keep discovering 'pristine looking' stars/features etc (which 'discoveries are 'problematic' for a supposed Big Bang 'beginning' 14+ Billion lightyears ago)? I have been pointing all the above out and more for a long time. If you don't recall, or you missed it all, here is an example from back in June, 2014, in my responses to antialias:

https://phys.org/...html#jCp

So, can you now see, my observations are increasingly being confirmed correct on that and many other scosmology/astrophysics/QM-plasmon physis issues by mainstream discovery/review? :)
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Mar 28, 2017
This is all lies and obfuscation. I have been a professional scientist my whole professional life, and as usual, you have NO evidence to the contrary, yet STILL you make the claim.


Yeah, RNP..........I guess you've forgotten that slip of the tongue some time back when someone was querying your professional background & you explicitly stated you were a journalist. You slipped, but now it's sticking.

At the time when you made the admission of being a journalist is when it finally made sense to me why you were unable to comprehend the application of the Inverse Square Law as applied to BHs. No science professional needs to be corrected on application of the ISL. Those of us who are science professionals know the ISL is applied from the SURFACE of a mass, not from its CENTER (or some point in between), but you have continually persisted not comprehending this most simple law of Physics.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Mar 28, 2017
@RNP, @Steelwolf et al. :)

Re your on-going cross-threads exchanges re the recent discovery that galactic dynamics/motions correlates closely to ordinary/Baryonic matter distribution etc, can you [RNP] now address my point which I made some time ago which militates against the 'exotic' DM logics/explanations which seem to want it both ways, but neither of which way is consistent, no matter which 'exotic' DM angle is being pushed by proponents. If you missed the latest re-statement of my relevant point/question, please see my last post to Whyde, dated March 25, 2017, in thread:

https://phys.org/...html#jCp

This is your opportunity to clarify exactly what your 'logic' is re this matter between you and Steelwolf (and me too, of course). Thanks in advance for your polite and cogent counter-explanation/argument in this matter. Cheers. :)

Benni
1 / 5 (2) Mar 28, 2017
........which militates against the 'exotic' DM logics/explanations which seem to want it both ways, but neither of which way is consistent, no matter which 'exotic' DM angle is being pushed by proponents.


RC.......you still don't get it do you? When he comes to a fork in the road for making a decision & he doesn't know what to do.........he takes the fork. Classic technique learned in the schools of journalism.

Thanks in advance for your polite and cogent counter-explanation/argument in this matter. Cheers. :)


Oh? You weren't speaking to me? That's okay, you're welcome anyway. Learn how to vote, I gave you another zero......Can't you tell? Well, at least it didn't dilute the tally. :-)
RNP
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 29, 2017
@Steelwolf
Obviously I Win that round. RNP does not return...


There is little to be said to someone who can quote directly from a paper and still COMPLETELY misinterpret it.

So, one last time. The paper says: "We envisage two general scenarios: (I) we need new fundamental laws of physics rather than DM, or (II) we need new physics in the dark sector leading to a baryon-DM coupling."

It is obvious from this sentence that BOTH of the scenarios they suggest require new physics. Your claim that normal baryonic physics can explain the results is therefore a GROSS misinterpretation.

You also misunderstand my motive for posting here if you think I do it to WIN arguments with the likes of you. Such a thing is impossible anyway. My motives are purely to make sure that NOBODY ELSE falls for the pseudo-scientific claptrap posted by cranks on this site. Once that is achieved I leave the cranks to bury themselves deeper in their fantasy worlds should they wish.
IMP-9
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 29, 2017
With the fresh data they show that baryonic mass acounts for ALL observed motion with no need for a DM component and state that either there is no need for a DM component


No, read the paper properly. It says there is a tight relationship between the observed gravitational acceleration and that due to normal matter, but it isn't 1 to 1. The normal matter doesn't account for it all under Newtonian gravity.

"We envisage two general scenarios: (I) we need new fundamental laws of physics rather than DM, or (II) we need new physics in the dark sector leading to a baryon-DM coupling."

Which has been shown to be nothing more than premature speculation. Standard Cold Dark Matter and normal galaxy formation account for this observation. Simulations run before this paper was published actually match the observations precisely and it has be shown to be a natural outcome of galaxy formation.

https://arxiv.org...12.06329

https://arxiv.org...10.07663
Steelwolf
1 / 5 (5) Mar 29, 2017
How Precious, RNP moves further into abject denial. Funny that yes, they Both need new physics, ONE of which DOES AWAY WITH DARK MATTER ENTIRELY, and the Other which Pegs it directly to Baryonic Matter effects, such as Magnetic Fields.

And IMP-9 who dismisses what the Authors CLEARLY point out in their paper and gives 2 other papers, one of which points out that their numbers could as easily verify MOND type science as well.

People DO understand that both gravity and magnetism follow the inverse square root law of distance and that magnetic affect, just like gravitational, takes millions of years to appreciably affect any stellar mass within that distance, and that it is just as likely to be pertubed by magnetics (which is not taken into account AT ALL in these papers) as by any mythical DM.

No, IMP-9, those papers show no big proofs of DM, they only show that there is Something affecting them other than gravity of baryonic mass, the Occams Razor answer is Magnetic Fields.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 29, 2017
..... Standard Cold Dark Matter.......... account for this observation.


No, it doesn't, and you don't even know why. You make such a foolish statement only because you've never taken a course in nuclear physics & gotten a passing grade, try that first, then come back after you've studied General Relativity.

All your FACTS are INFERRED from an hypothesis that has yet to prove the existence of something for which there is no EVIDENCE.

INFERRED SCIENCE is fun stuff to play with, perpetual motion gone mainstream into the PoP-Sci culture.

IMP-9
3.4 / 5 (7) Mar 29, 2017
who dismisses what the Authors CLEARLY point out in their paper


Claim in their paper. Claim. They did absolutely nothing to show it was not compatible with CDM. To quote them precisely "may suggest the need of a revision of the standard DM paradigm". May. Since then people have actually done the work and shown it is compatible, on the basis of evidence I dismiss the baseless claim in the original paper.

one of which points out that their numbers could as easily verify MOND type science as well


Yes, the original paper you quoted was written by MOND people hence why they initially tried to claim this was incompatible with dark matter. If you actually bothered to read the papers before dismissing them you'd see examples of where MOND fails are given in one of them.

those papers show no big proofs of DM


It proves CDM is compatible with the radial acceleration relation. As I said.
RNP
3.8 / 5 (6) Mar 29, 2017
@Steelwolf
...they Both need new physics, ONE of which DOES AWAY WITH DARK MATTER ENTIRELY, and the Other which Pegs it directly to Baryonic Matter effects, such as Magnetic Fields.


There is absolutely NO mention of magnetic fields in the paper. So now you are putting words into the authors' mouths. Ridiculous words that they would scoff at, to boot. Magnetic fields having ~5 times more effect on galaxy accelerations than gravity! You are kidding nobody here.

People DO understand that both gravity and magnetism follow the inverse square root law of distance....


Yet more BS! For magnetism, the ISL applies only to *monopoles*, which have never been observed. So, in the sense of REAL magnetic fields, this is ANOTHER false statement (for real magnetic fields, it is more like 1/r and I challenge you to try and prove otherwise). I am surprised that someone so fixated on magnetic fields did not know this!
Steelwolf
1 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2017
WOW, RNP Really likes steppin on his own pecker:
"The divergence of a vector field which is the resultant of radial inverse-square law fields with respect to one or more sources is everywhere proportional to the strength of the local sources, and hence zero outside sources. Newton's law of universal gravitation follows an inverse-square law, as do the effects of electric, magnetic, light, sound, and radiation phenomena."

A Wikipedia Quote.

And IMP-9, those papers PROVE Nothing, they only SUGGEST, as noted by their respective Authors. THEY do not go so far as to say it Proves DM.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Mar 29, 2017
The relevant magnetic field description of a Birkeland current (such as the filaments galaxies are immersed) is shown here;
http://www.ptep-o...1-13.PDF
"The total magnetic field magnitude and current density are shown to vary inversely as the square root of r. For large r, outside the plasma, the azimuthal magnetic field is shown to vary as 1/r. These results are shown to be consistent with laboratory and astronomical observations."
Steelwolf
3 / 5 (4) Mar 29, 2017
Let me guess RNP, you do not believe that Magnetics can affect the shape or creation of any galaxy? You also realize that EVERYTHING we can see depends on electromagnetism and charge factors, including valence, right? If you are any sort of real scientist you would realize that is just pure truth.

As it is, you deny anyone's differing theories and keep going back to the one that has NO proof behind it, only supposition because if it was known how highly charged and magnetic the Universe is then people would be able to see how easily space travel can be made. Electro-gravitics are actually very well known in the Military, and just because they want to keep That science secret they bias all other sciences that MAY point the direction to field-type drives.

There were many working models built and tested int he 40's and 50's. it was ONLY after this that the idea of Dark Matter came up, and directly as a way to hide the obvious magneto-gravitic physics.
Tuxford
2.3 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2017
Electro-gravitics are actually very well known in the Military, and just because they want to keep That science secret they bias all other sciences that MAY point the direction to field-type drives.

There were many working models built and tested int he 40's and 50's. it was ONLY after this that the idea of Dark Matter came up, and directly as a way to hide the obvious magneto-gravitic physics.

That is why we are stuck with the Huge Bang Fantasy. Irrationally rationale science types are far too gullible, and easily manipulated by the spooks. This site is very likely a counter-intelligence asset. Look it up yourself, and decide.

I don't talk about electro-gravitics, since it is a security concern. But I don't appreciate the destruction of individual reputations by spooks over national security. Govt gone wild, supporting the careers of the spooks instead. Shame.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Mar 29, 2017
It proves CDM is compatible with the radial acceleration relation. As I said.


........and precisely because you "said" it is as good a reason as any that it "proves" no such thing about CDM & demonstrates the lack of scientific credentials on your part for making such a statement.

I mean, hell's bells man, you've been in this chatroom, along with RNP, on so many occasions making it clear that GRAVITY is NOT MASS DEPENDENT. You have been adamant that by taking a given quantity of mass & squeezing it into an increasingly smaller volume that gravity will just start showing up out of nowhere, alias Schwarzschild Black Hole Math.

Take a course in Nuclear Physics, get a passing grade, then come back & talk to those of us who are science professionals who already know what General Relativity is all about, clearly you & RNP the journalist don't.
barakn
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 29, 2017

"Newton's law of universal gravitation follows an inverse-square law, as do the effects of electric, magnetic, light, sound, and radiation phenomena."

A Wikipedia Quote. -SteelWolf
Well, then Wikipedia is wrong. The field of a magnetic dipole decreases as 1/r^3, not 1/r^2, and higher-order multipoles decrease even faster, at least when you are a sufficient distance away from the source of the magnetic field.
barakn
3 / 5 (6) Mar 29, 2017
The relevant magnetic field description of a Birkeland current (such as the filaments galaxies are immersed) is shown here;
http://www.ptep-o...1-13.PDF
"The total magnetic field magnitude and current density are shown to vary inversely as the square root of r. For large r, outside the plasma, the azimuthal magnetic field is shown to vary as 1/r. These results are shown to be consistent with laboratory and astronomical observations." -cantunderstandmath85

Scott assumed an infinitely long current. It was much easier this way as he was then able to conveniently ignore questions about how the current is generated or sustained. And the solution reduces to the same magnetic field of as an infinitely long current in an infinitesimally thick wire at a sufficient distance, which surprises no one. Infinitely long wires and filaments don't exist.
IMP-9
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 29, 2017
THEY do not go so far as to say it Proves DM.


Nobody is claiming they do. What I said, was that they prove CDM is consistent with these observations. Note how that is not the same as claiming dark matter is proven. Please stop these cheap strawman dismissals. Actually read what people are telling you.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2017

"Newton's law of universal gravitation follows an inverse-square law, as do the effects of electric, magnetic, light, sound, and radiation phenomena."

A Wikipedia Quote. -SteelWolf

Well, then Wikipedia is wrong. The field of a magnetic dipole decreases as 1/r^3, not 1/r^2, and higher-order multipoles decrease even faster


.......Steely wasn't discussing magnetic dipoles. The inverse cube has absolutely nothing to do with the attractive/intensive forces of gravity, or the irradiance of electromagnetic radiation, this is governed SOLELY by the Inverse Square Law.

It's easy to see why you & RNP are so agreeable with one another, your comprehension of basic laws of physics is so scant that you believe in perpetual motion & you don't even recognize it when it slaps you right up alongside the head.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2017
The relevant magnetic field description of a Birkeland current (such as the filaments galaxies are immersed) is shown here;
http://www.ptep-o...DF......

Scott assumed an infinitely long current. .


Oh, this is THAT paper, is it? Where the idiot Scott thinks M2-9 is a Z-pinch! Lol. Despite the fact that the outflows are travelling in opposite directions, from the central star! Idiot should stick to his lab, he is clueless on matters astronomical. Which is why it got published in a crap journal.
https://briankobe...nknowns/
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2017
jonesdumb, you utter ignorance of plasma physics precedes you. He clearly points out these Birkeland currents have counter rotation and counter flows. You have simplistic preconceived notions of the highly complex phenomena. Observational support of these counter rotating and flowing currents are shown here;
https://phys.org/...ets.html
And once again all you have is ad hominem attacks and links to other morons who's ignorance is only exceeded by your own.
barakn
5 / 5 (4) Mar 31, 2017
To quote Scott: "an overall average current vector, I, which, by definition determines the direction of the z -axis. The magnitude of I is assumed to be everywhere independent of the z coordinate." In other words, the net current is in only one direction, forever. You throw in all the counter-rotating bullshit you want, but it can't explain the movement of matter in two opposite directions.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Mar 31, 2017
This is pretty interesting. I wonder what it will do to the estimates of extra-galactic stars in the IGM.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2017
You throw in all the counter-rotating bullshit you want, but it can't explain the movement of matter in two opposite directions.

Because in your mind the electrons and protons should flow in the same direction... somehow.
barakn
5 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2017
Current accounts for the movement of both types of charge, I would have hoped you would be aware of that. We can simply choose a constant velocity frame of reference such that either the average velocity of the positive charges or of the negative charges is zero. Or if I'm in a frame of reference such that I happen to see N positive particles passing through a small area in the +z direction and an N number of negative particles traveling in the -z direction, then the net current in the +z direction is N - ( -N) = 2N. But at any rate the flow at M2-9 was measured from the movement of uncharged particles, and they, because the efficiency of the transfer of momentum when colliding with an electron is low, tend to travel in the same direction as the positive ions, not the electrons. The uncharged particles are flowing outward in two opposing directions, and supposing that their movement is due to current, this implies two outwardly directed currents (pos outward, neg inward).

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.